The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1887-06-29
THE HlzRKsY CASE.
What the Professors and Trustees OF An
dover University Propose to DO.
Boston Special.

Boston Sp ecial.l
A correspondent who is exceptionally
well informed regarding the theological
storm at Andover, writes to the Record as
follows: 1.-THE whole situation has become
definite; purposes have been formed, meth
DDS of procedure determined, and the in-
itial step taken, ali within about forty
hours from the time when the fateful en-
velopes were handed around. To begin
with: Two simultaneous and parallel ap-
peals will be taken to the Supreme courts
one by the Board of Trustees and the other
by Professor Smyth. The trustees will APP
peal against what they regard as the usur-
patton by the visitors of functions belong
ing to the trustees. Professor Smyth will
appeal on the ground that in numerous re-
spects the proceedings have been illegal
and unjust.
or course, the Supreme Court can not
undertake to settle theological disputes,
and will not be asked to do so. More and
more the evidence accumulates that theo-
logical disputes had very little to do with
the decision. A great number OF ex-
ceptions were taken by the lawyers on the
trial; but the gTavest point raised before
the court will probably be in regard to
facts that have come to light since then.
One of those will be the partisanship of
member of the board of visitors, exhibited
in various WAYS. The circumstances that
the enemies of Professor Smyth openly
boosted immedia ely alter the election of
certain visitor toaL he was on their side,
taken in connection with the means used
secure his election, will very likely come
Dder the notice of the court. Whether or
q certain visitor is qualified and capable
In the eyes Of the law to discharge the
duties of the great trust committed Co him
is aquestion which the court may be called
upon to answer.
Very grave doubt exists whether the de-
cisioD, supposing it to have been rendered
by men all of whom are qualified for their
places and holding their places in other re-
sDects rIghtfully, is, after all, legal de-
clsion. 1t is thought to be self-contradict-
ory and invalid through its absurdity. The
statutes under which the visitors act do not
give them any such discretion as would
permit the condemning of one professor
and the acquittal of another on the same
charges sustained by the same evidence.
There were five separate indictments and
must have been five separate votes. Pro-
lessor Smyth's case was first on the list.
The vote was that the evidence proved
him guilty, but four subsequent votes on
the four following cases declared that the
same evidence was not sufficient to sustain
the same charges. This was, in reality,
reversal of the first decision. 1t will be
claimed with confidence that the final &C
ton of the visitors having been to the ef-
feet that the charges were not sustained,
that action must be held to apply to all
professors involved.
These are some of the grounds on which
the findings of the board will be contested.
But even if on these and all the other ex-
ceptions taken, the court should decide
against Professor Smyth, there are still
more radical measures in contem platlon,
and of whose success little doubt is enter
tanned. The five professors authorize the
statement that not one of them will accept
an acquittal which is not an acquittal of
all the others. They will stay or go to-
gether. As for next year, everything will
go on the same as usual. Professor Smyth
will remain and do his accustomed work.
Rev. Frank Woodruff. whose election to
the chair of Greek literature the visitors
negatived, will continue as before.